Storage rescans currently run very slowly when enumerating every snapshot on every volume. It makes it difficult when doing lots of provisioning like we do - especially when you're using NetApp SnapVault integration where there could be hundreds of snapshots per volume!
It would be nice if you could specify a number of working threads for this process.
It would also be better if I could create a filter by SVM in the "Choose volumes..." menu. Currently our options are every volume on every SVM in the cluster, or one-by-one choosing each volume, which is tedious in a large environment. If I could, for instance, choose the SVM with only NFS that only serves VMware datastores, that would make that process so much easier.
-
- Lurker
- Posts: 2
- Liked: never
- Joined: Apr 17, 2017 8:43 pm
- Contact:
-
- Chief Product Officer
- Posts: 31816
- Liked: 7302 times
- Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
- Location: Baar, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Feature Request | Add multi-thread ability on storage re
If I am not mistaken, we had such capability before, but had to disable because enumerating multiple snapshot at once was cause NetApp controllers to overload.
Regarding SVM, makes total sense! I will note this request for the future releases.
Thanks!
Regarding SVM, makes total sense! I will note this request for the future releases.
Thanks!
-
- Lurker
- Posts: 2
- Liked: never
- Joined: Apr 17, 2017 8:43 pm
- Contact:
Re: Feature Request | Add multi-thread ability on storage re
Thanks Gostev.
As far as overloading the controllers, I don't see that as an issue in my particular case. I've run 4 or 5 storage rescans concurrently (accidentally of course) and I haven't seen any negative performance impact. Perhaps adding the feature as an opt-in and configurable option (1-8 threads, etc) would be a better compromise. What do you think?
As far as overloading the controllers, I don't see that as an issue in my particular case. I've run 4 or 5 storage rescans concurrently (accidentally of course) and I haven't seen any negative performance impact. Perhaps adding the feature as an opt-in and configurable option (1-8 threads, etc) would be a better compromise. What do you think?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests